Subject: Re: sometimes behave so strangely From: Peter Lennox <P.Lennox@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:19:13 +0000 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>Ah! good point... -but we are pretty used to listening to repeated musical phrases - I mean, music is, by nature, built out of nested repetitions (opinion)` l think speech is much more immediate. In fact, a repetitious speech (I don't mean repetitive) is often hard to listen to, and we talk about someone 'droning on'. admittedly, some people say the sme about some music - especially process music. But I think if the music didn't change at all, we might begin to treat it as 'noise'. So I wonder if there is likely to emerge a stage where the repeated phrase 'comes out the other side' and gradually ceases to be musical any more? regards ppl >>> "Al Bregman" <al.bregman@xxxxxxxx> 13/12/2006 19:29 >>> Hi Peter, You wrote: "on repetition, there's no new semantic content, > and so semantic content slips down the priority list, allowing other > characteristics to move up in priority)," But with repetition, there is no new musical information either. Why doesn't the musical content slip down the priority list too? Regards, Al ---------------------------- On 12/13/06, Peter Lennox <P.Lennox@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear all, > Without wanting to drag this away from the semantic content question > (though I'd think that, on repetition, there's no new semantic content, > and so semantic content slips down the priority list, allowing other > characteristics to move up in priority), this reminds me that whenever > recordings of real world sounds are used in a spatial rendition, if they > are looped, they gradually become perceptible as 'musical'. > Clearly this is content dependent (some sounds are more intrinsically > 'musical' and can be so perceived more readily) and the length of the > interval between repetitions seems important. sometimes, the loop can > feature quite a lot of disparate elements (e'g a duck at some distance > to the right, a hammer striking infrequently off to the left, a > throat-clearing behind, and so on) in such a way that the repetitive > nature for some elements becomes obvious sooner than for others. when > they all do, they become incorporated in a complex rythm, and (it seems > to me) it is then that they seem most musical. > But on the question of how the effect endures - is this not simply that > once has heard it as a 'tune' it is hard to 'unhear it' as such? > I'd be interested to know whether people can remember the 'sung' phrase > more accurately and /or longer than an equivalent phrase, repeated as > many times, but where the intonation has been randomised so that no tune > forms (IF such a thing is possible...) > > I'm puzzled about the possible inferences in respect of 'flattening' of > pitch contour - are you saying that, as people hear the phrase as more > of a tune and less of a sentence, they also 'compress' the tune? > regards > ppl > p.s - on your Mussorgsky example - I'm always puzzled that more people > don't hear parts of the world as musical > > > Dr. Peter Lennox > S.P.A.R.G. > Signal Processing Applications Research Group > University of Derby > http://sparg.derby.ac.uk > Int. tel: 1775 > > >>> Diana Deutsch <ddeutsch@xxxxxxxx> 13/12/2006 06:47 >>> > Dear Al (and List), > > You raise some very interesting points. I don't think that the > explanation lies in semantic satiation, because the words (vowels and > > consonants) are still heard very clearly, even though the phrase > appears to be sung. I do agree, though, that the answer lies, at > least in part, in the pitch modulations - though exactly what > happens isn't clear. At the ASA meeting I presented an illustration > showing the pitch tracing of my original rendition, and that of a > subject repeating what she heard after multiple repetitions. The > contours of all the syllables were flattened in the subject's > rendition, and it's my strong impression that people literally begin > to hear the contours as flattened. I'd be happy to send this > illustration to anyone who is interested. > > You also raise the point that the transformation of the phrase from > speech to song endures - so that when people listen again to the full > > sentence, I appear to burst into song. This , to my mind, is a > particularly puzzling aspect of the effect. People have told me that > > the effect is still present, unattenuated, even months later - and > this was certainly my experience. As you point out, perhaps the most > important question raised by this demonstration is why people don't > always hear speech as song. After all, the vowel components of words > > are harmonic complexes - yet the pitch characteristics of speech are > > usually suppressed in perception. > > The composer Mussorggsky wrote in a letter to Rimsky-Korsokoff: > > 'whatever speech I hear, no matter who is speaking ... my brain > immediately sets to working out a musical exposition for this > speech' . On listening to his music - particularly his song cycles > - one can deliberately flip one's perception to a different mode, and > > hear, very convincingly, the intonation of Russian speech. I've often > > wondered whether Mussorgsky may have heard all speech as we hear > 'sometimes behave so strangely' after repetition. > > All best, > > Diana > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > Professor Diana Deutsch > Department of Psychology > University of California, San Diego > 9500 Gilman Dr. #0109 > La Jolla, CA 92093-0109, USA > > 858-453-1558 (tel) > 858-453-4763 (fax) > > http://www-psy.ucsd.edu/~ddeutsch > http://www.philomel.com > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Al Bregman wrote: > > > Dear Diana (and List), > > > > Yes indeed! The repetitions do seem to comvert spoken speech to > > singing. > > > > I wonder whether your phenomenon isn't related to that of "semantic > > satiation", in which a word that is repeated over and over tends to > > lose its meaning and to be perceived as a sequence of sounds. The > > meaning is not lost in an all-or-nothing fashion, but tends to get > > weaker and weaker. (See > > .http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/499s99/yamauchi/semantic.htm) > > > > In the case of your demonstration there is a strongly modulated F0 > > (intonation contour) over the phrase. It may be that when we hear > > ordinary speech, which contains pitch modulation (an acoustic > > phenomenon that is present in both music and speech), the speech and > > musical schemas are both evoked and compete with one another. > > However, when the cues for speech are dominant (i.e., continuous and > > non-repeating modulation of F0, without pausing on particular > > pitches), the musical interpretation is suppressed. But when the > > phrase is repeated many times, a satiation and weakening of the > speech > > interpretation occurs (as in semantic satiation), thereby allowing > the > > musical interpretation to become more dominant. Of course it > doesn't > > become completely dominant, or else we wouldn't hear speech at all. > > Rather there is an intermediate form of activation in which we hear > > both speech and music (i.e., singing). > > > > In your demonstration, immediately after hearing the phase as > melodic, > > when we listen to the whole sentence again, we still maintain an > > association between the phrase and the melodic interpretation. I > > wonder how long this aftereffect lasts. > > > > Your demonstration raises the fascinating question of why we don't > > ALWAYS hear speech as singing. It may be that persons with absolute > > pitch come closer to this than the rest of us do, or at least can > turn > > it on when they want to. A number of years ago, I asked Poppy Crum, > a > > graduate student of mine who had absolute pitch, whether she could > > assign musical note values to my intonation pattern as I said a > > phrase. She replied that this was easy, and gave me a sequence of > > note names. > > > > Whatever the explanation of your phenomenon, it is truly > interesting, > > and raises some challenging questions. I hope you yourself, or some > > of our colleagues, will be able to shed light on the phenomenon > > through a series of analytical experiments. > > > > All the best, > > > > Al > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Albert S. Bregman, Emeritus Professor > > Psychology Department, McGill University > > 1205 Docteur Penfield Avenue > > Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 1B1. > > Tel: (514) 484-2592, (514) 398-6103 > > Fax: (514) 484-2592 > > www.psych.mcgill.ca/labs/auditory/Home.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > On 12/12/06, Diana Deutsch <ddeutsch@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Dear list, > >> > >> I've had a number of requests for the sound demonstration I > >> presented at > >> the recent ASA meeting in Honolulu, in which the spoken phrase > >> 'sometimes > >> behave so strangely' following several repetitions, appears > >> convincingly > >> to be sung rather than spoken - though there is no musical > >> context and no > >> physical transformation of the sound. This demonstration, together > > >> with > >> spoken commentary, is on my CD 'Phantom Words and Other > Curiosities' > >> (available from Philomel Records - http://www.philomel.com). > >> > >> The sound demonstration is also posted on the website: > >> > >> http://philomel.com/phantom_words/description.html#sometimes > >> > >> and it's described in the booklet accompanying the CD, which is > >> posted at: > >> > >> http://philomel.com/phantom_words/booklet/ > >> > >> Happy Holidays! > >> > >> Diana Deutsch > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -- > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Albert S. Bregman, Emeritus Professor Psychology Department, McGill University 1205 Docteur Penfield Avenue Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 1B1. Tel: (514) 484-2592, (514) 398-6103 Fax: (514) 484-2592 www.psych.mcgill.ca/labs/auditory/Home.html ------------------------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________